The role of novelty in environmental enrichment for the weaned pig

Trickett, Sarah L.; Guy, Jonathan; Edwards, Sandra A.

doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2008.07.007

Cited by 89 publications

(76 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Hanging objects thus may have potential: in a meta-analysis of the time spent by pigs interacting with enrichment, properties promoting this interaction included enrichments which were suspended and/or deformable (Averós et al, 2010). For example pigs show sustained interest in interacting with destructible ropes (Trickett et al, 2009), or hanging objects with an edible component ( Van de Weerd et al, 2003), and 'flavoured rope' devices for pigs are being sold commercially in Finland. However, the effects of these forms of enrichment on tail biting have not been investigated.…”

Section: Availability Of Manipulable Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Injurious tail biting in pigs: how can it be controlled in existing systems without tail docking?

D’Eath

Arnott

Turner

et al. 2014

Animal

152

143

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tail biting is a serious animal welfare and economic problem in pig production. Tail docking, which reduces but does not eliminate tail biting, remains widespread. However, in the EU tail docking may not be used routinely, and some 'alternative' forms of pig production and certain countries do not allow tail docking at all. Against this background, using a novel approach focusing on research where tail injuries were quantified, we review the measures that can be used to control tail biting in pigs without tail docking. Using this strict criterion, there was good evidence that manipulable substrates and feeder space affect damaging tail biting. Only epidemiological evidence was available for effects of temperature and season, and the effect of stocking density was unclear. Studies suggest that group size has little effect, and the effects of nutrition, disease and breed require further investigation. The review identifies a number of knowledge gaps and promising avenues for future research into prevention and mitigation. We illustrate the diversity of hypotheses concerning how different proposed risk factors might increase tail biting through their effect on each other or on the proposed underlying processes of tail biting. A quantitative comparison of the efficacy of different methods of provision of manipulable materials, and a review of current practices in countries and assurance schemes where tail docking is banned, both suggest that daily provision of small quantities of destructible, manipulable natural materials can be of considerable benefit. Further comparative research is needed into materials, such as ropes, which are compatible with slatted floors. Also, materials which double as fuel for anaerobic digesters could be utilised. As well as optimising housing and management to reduce risk, it is important to detect and treat tail biting as soon as it occurs. Early warning signs before the first bloody tails appear, such as pigs holding their tails tucked under, could in future be automatically detected using precision livestock farming methods enabling earlier reaction and prevention of tail damage. However, there is a lack of scientific studies on how best to respond to outbreaks: the effectiveness of, for example, removing biters and/or bitten pigs, increasing enrichment, or applying substances to tails should be investigated. Finally, some breeding companies are exploring options for reducing the genetic propensity to tail bite. If these various approaches to reduce tail biting are implemented we propose that the need for tail docking will be reduced.

show abstract

Section: Availability Of Manipulable Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Injurious tail biting in pigs: how can it be controlled in existing systems without tail docking?

D’Eath

Arnott

Turner

et al. 2014

Animal

152

143

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Current literature suggests the environmental enrichment objects must be attractive, chewable, consumable, deformable, destructible, and have a stimulating scent or flavor, and yet create novelty [5]. Those objects must motivate the species and prove effective in their goal throughout the production process since studies indicate that the animals quickly lose interest in them [6, 7]. Studies have shown the reduction in pig interaction with the objects within five to six days [8, 5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Behavior of Pigs Reared in Enriched Environment: Alternatives to Extend Pigs Attention

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three trials were carried out in a completely randomized design aiming to assess the behavior of pigs in growth phase in enriched environments. Trial 1 evaluated the effects of frequency of availability of environmental enrichment. The animals were assigned to four treatments: 1) control with no enrichment object; 2) objects provided for six consecutive days uninterruptedly; 3) objects provided on alternate days, and 4) objects provided for six consecutive days taken away by the end of the afternoon and replaced at dawn. Trial 2 assessed the effects of scent on animals’ acceptance and maintenance of interest in objects. Animals were assigned to four treatments: 1) unscented object; 2) object with banana scent; 3) object with rum scent; 4) object with scents alternated every other day. Trial 3 aimed to assess the influence of environmental enrichment based on providing rewards at different difficulty levels. Animals were assigned to three treatments: 1) object with no reward; 2) object with a reward at an easy level; 3) object with a reward at a difficult level. Each trial had six days of behavioral observations every ten minutes for eight hours each day using images from video cameras. Enrichment objects stimulated the animals’ natural behavior of nuzzling and exploring the environment. The way the objects were available did not impact the success of their use. Offering enrichment on alternate days or removing the objects by the end of the day was not an effective strategy to extend the animals’ interest. The olfactory stimulus in environmental enrichment objects had no positive effect on extending the animals’ interest on them, nor did alternating the aromas. The tactile stimulus was a key factor for object attractiveness. Providing environmental enrichment objects with rewards stimulated the exploratory behavior of pigs. The level of difficulty to obtain the reward may discourage the animals.

show abstract

“…Habituation to enrichment items has been observed in many captive animals, such as pigs (Sus spp. ), Western lowland gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla), sloth bears (Melursus ursinus), and American black (Ursus americanus) and brown (Ursus arctos) bears [Anderson et al, 2010;Carlstead et al, 1991;Robbins and Margulis, 2014;Trickett et al, 2009]. Since the four elephants in the present study quickly habituated to the two auditory stimuli provided, it is plausible that captive elephants, in general, will habituate to auditory enrichment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 79%

Habituation to Auditory Stimuli by Captive African Elephants (Loxodonta africana)

Goodyear¹,

Schulte²

2015

AB&C

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The role of novelty in environmental enrichment for the weaned pig

Cited by 89 publications

References 19 publications

Injurious tail biting in pigs: how can it be controlled in existing systems without tail docking?

Injurious tail biting in pigs: how can it be controlled in existing systems without tail docking?

Behavior of Pigs Reared in Enriched Environment: Alternatives to Extend Pigs Attention

Habituation to Auditory Stimuli by Captive African Elephants (Loxodonta africana)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About